Five Pieces of Evidence of Official Foreknowledge, Facilitation, or Participation in the Attacks

FBI translator Sibel Edmonds says documents she saw prove that the FBI was aware of plans to attack the US with airplanes and knew the targets and the dates in advance. She was fired and placed under strict gag orders under the little-used State Secrets Act.

The recollections of Behrooz Sharshar, FBI field officer Robert Wright, counterterror chief John O’Neill, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit of the Minnesota FBI, the “Phoenix Memo,” David Schippers, the 1991 orders restricting investigations against potential terrorists, the Bush administration’s Feb. 2001 order to “back off ” the Bin Ladin family, and the FBI reaction to the “Bojinka” plot of the 1990s do not, when considered in sum, point to mere incompetence, but rather indicate high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators.

(Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.) In January 2001 the Bush administration issued an “199i” order (in FBI parlance) to suspend investigations into the Bin Ladin family and alleged Saudi financing of terror networks. Several FBI agents and employees have testified to high-level obstruction of field investigations that might have led to the alleged hijackers or their possible financiers, or otherwise exposed networks ofpotential terrorists in the months prior to Sept. 11. The FBI’s former top investigator of al-Qaeda, John O’Neill, claimed that investigations were not pursued in order to accommodate oil interests and the Saudi alliance. He died on Sept. 11.

On the evening of Sept. 10, Gen. Winfield requested that his regularly scheduled shift as commander of the NMCC the next morning at 8:30am be moved back by two hours, to 10:30am. This coincidentally corresponded to the time of the attacks. Newsweek reported that on Sept. 10, Pentagon brass canceled travel plans for the next morning due to an unspecified warning. The 9/11 Commission again did not pursue these items, possibly suggestive of foreknowledge.

Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack (aerial attacks by suicide pilots, according to Russian intelligence and others), the name of the operation (the “Big Wedding,” according to a Jordanian warning), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the 9/11 ringleaders (provided by the Israeli Mossad). Russian president Vladimir Putin said he communicated one of the warnings himself.

“The Complete 9/11 Timeline” compiled by editor Paul Thompson at cooperativeresearch.org details dozens of further, specific, actionable warnings from governments and individuals and other cases of possible foreknowledge, and how these were neglected, ignored, or purposefully blocked from reaching anyone who would act to enforce the law. The 9/11 Commission Report chose to ignore the entire issue.

Highly irregular activity in financial markets just prior to 9/11 offers prima facie evidence of foreknowledge of the attacks. A disproportionately high number of ‘put’ options were purchased on United Airlines, American Airlines, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Merrill Lynch & Co. and other companies directly and seriously impacted by the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission Report acknowledged the existence of some of the irregular financial activity, but offered a logically fallacious explanation for its insignificance.

Questioning the official story of 9/11 is an act of responsible citizenship.

We all know the official story of September 11th: four jetliners were hijacked by groups of four and five Arabic men armed with box cutters, who proceeded to fly three of the four jets into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

Subsequently the World Trade Center Towers, weakened by the impacts and fires, collapsed into piles of rubble. The FBI had compiled a list of hijackers within three days, and it was so obvious that Osama bin Laden had masterminded the operation from caves in Afghanistan, that there was no need to seriously investigate the crime or produce evidence. The "retaliatory" attack on the Taliban would soon commence.

Is this story true?

We don't think so.

Its central assumptions have never been tested by an official government body whose members lack obvious conflicts of interest. There are numerous red flags in the official story, which requires a long series of highly improbable coincidences.